In your opinion, what are the worst video game microtransactions

Please Note: The TotalFreedom Forum has now been put into a read-only mode. Total Freedom has now closed down and will not be returning in any way, shape or form. It has been a pleasure to lead this community and I wish you all the best for your futures.

    ↩  matscalle I mean realistically there isn't much you can do to a game which emulates a real life sport that doesn't change its rules.

    There are with each version as well, gameplay tweaks and changes to how the match engine works to give a different experience every year. I could go into more detail but nobody cares.

    There are rumours of EA adopting the new "free to play" model for the base game in future and allowing further microtransactions.

    To give an actual answer, mobile games have to be the worst for this. If the games aren't pumped full with ads, they're designed with paywalls and impulse offers left right and centre to try and attract those few high-spending whales. Look at Raid: Shadow Legends, FIFA Mobile, Game of War: Fire Age, etc.

    Patrolling the Mojave almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter.

    Microtransactions in the free-to-play world make sense because that's their primary way of generating revenue. The point where I draw the line and start calling bullshit is when you have a $60 game that despite the hefty price, still has microtransactions in it even though you coughed up a good amount of cash.

    image.png

    ↩ @'wxtermelon' Yes, but you see why people complain any time a new FIFA is released? It is exactly the same game with the slightest tweaks, charged at £54.99.

    Quote

    ↩  erin to give a different experience every year. I could go into more detail but nobody cares.

    I disagree and I would care. The entire concept of a different experience is incredibly difficult in sports games as the game is entirely dependant on providing the same experience.

    Quote

    ↩  RedEastWood The entire concept of a different experience is incredibly difficult in sports games as the game is entirely dependant on providing the same experience.

    Well most of the changes are due to the increasingly competitive nature of the game and the fact that the playerbase usually finds several mechanics and attributes that are better than others. In recent years especially that's become more apparent - to give a direct example as best as I can, in FIFA 19, longshots and headed goals were especially popular, in particular an "overpowered" player item was the 6'5" Zlatan Ibrahimovic. His balance of stats for the games meta were appropriate - he featured high heading accuracy, volleys, reactions and composure, the latter two being utterly crucial stats for strikers. If they were lower, the players shots would be very inaccurate even if their other stats said they should be other wise.

    FIFA 20, the next year, noticeably changed that. It tried to balance out the overpowered mechanics from the year before by nerfing volleys and headers, as well as the impact of the composure attribute. But it did it too well, to the point where using a tall striker with good heading was actually a disadvantage over shorter options. Now, agility and balance would be two extremely important factors to a players ability, more than the year before, as well as the 5 star weak foot (out of 5) attribute being crucial for any player wanting to score goals. This meant the likes of Wissam Ben Yedder was an extremely popular option up front, despite the likes of Luis Suarez and Robert Lewandowski both looking like "better" options on paper and according to the previous year.

    Hope I explained that at least a little bit okay

    Patrolling the Mojave almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter.

    Quote

    ↩  erin FIFA 20, the next year, noticeably changed that. It tried to balance out the overpowered mechanics from the year before by nerfing volleys and headers, as well as the impact of the composure attribute. But it did it too well, to the point where using a tall striker with good heading was actually a disadvantage over shorter options. Now, agility and balance would be two extremely important factors to a players ability, more than the year before, as well as the 5 star weak foot (out of 5) attribute being crucial for any player wanting to score goals. This meant the likes of Wissam Ben Yedder was an extremely popular option up front, despite the likes of Luis Suarez and Robert Lewandowski both looking like “better” options on paper and according to the previous year.

    Your example of changing a player’s stats and nerfing an overpowered mechanic could have been solved with an update, instead of a new game costing £54.99.

    Do you genuinely believe that changing the header mechanics really justifies paying for an entirely new title?

    ↩  RedEastWood

    I agree, the free to play model is something they seriously need to adopt. Was just shedding some light on some of the changes that did happen between games although I probably did overexaggerate their importance.

    Their games are very microtransaction heavy as well, which is a rather severe problem when the game costs a good sixty quid a year, especially as non-FUT gamemodes have been neglected and rather poor these past few years. It's probably one of the, if not the worst console/pc title for the in-game purchases. Definitely not worth the money each year if it wasn't for the previous game no longer recieving development.

    Patrolling the Mojave almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter.

    Basically any mobile game. Either its loaded with ads to the point its unplayable unless you buy shit or you have to pay to get anything decent or else you will have a very hard time unlocking the same items, especially in online games. Lets not forget any game that costs as video said, anything 60 dollars or more and you still have to buy shit is ridiculous. A game priced like that and if its good would rake in plenty of profit for the developers.

    javaw_VqNRNZdU6Q.png
    image.png
    image.png

    ↩  Miwojedk

    a great example of this is Guild Wars 2 -- the base game is completely free -- no trial, no subscription, nothing.

    you buy the later expansions as a one-time fee and that's it -- it's got a cash shop, but all that has in it is skins and quality of life items, nothing that'd make the game pay-to-win or unfair.

    to take it further, aside from buying the expansions, you can convert in-game currency to the cash shop currency for free, so in reality you don't even need to pay actual money for shop items if you don't mind grinding a bit.

    this is how most games should be ran tbch.

    1gaah.png

    GTA's shark cards. 75 pounds (99.99 USD) for 8 million fucking GTA$ is the most bullshit thing ever. You could do some grinding for a couple of hours and you would've saved yourself almost 80 quid, just another way for Rockstar to essentially rob your wallet.